Neal Norwitz wrote: > [moving to python-dev] > >> On 1/7/06, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, it is not the test that's broken... it's compiler. > > [In reference to: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2006-January/048715.html] > > In the past, we haven't checked in tests which are known to be broken.
Okay. I apologize. I originally intended to fix it, but I found that I don't have the time to search the bug. > There are several good reasons for this. I would prefer you, 1) also > fix the code so the test doesn't fail, 2) revert the change (there's > still a bug report open, right?), or 3) generalize tests for known > bugs. > > I strongly prefer #1, but have been thinking about adding #3. There > are many open bug reports that fall into two broad categories: > incorrect behaviour and crashers. I've been thinking about adding two > tests which incorporate these bugs as a way of consolidating where the > known problems are. Also, it's great when we have test cases that can > be moved to the proper place once the fix has been checked in. > > I'm proposing something like add two files to Lib/test: > outstanding_bugs.py and outstanding_crashes.py. Both would be normal > test files with info about the bug report and the code that causes > problems. > > This test in test_compiler should be moved to outstanding_bugs.py. I added outstanding_bugs.py and this initial test. regards, Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
